Thoughts on The Black Arts.

[Yolan]

I've been thinking about this for a while, but really once dev sessions turn to focusing on villages/towns again, we might well see some kind of 'war' declaration ability. So, Town 1 would declare war on Town 2, which means both towns are officially at war with eachother, until some kind of peace deal is brokered. There would need to be some kind of meta UI for this, but there are heaps of examples from other games.

Anyway, as I see it, if you belong to a village, and kill a person belonging to a village you are at war with, it should leave no scents. Likewise, if you cause destruction to the village you are at war with.

Because a peace would require the lawspeakers of both sides to consent, a jerk village couldn't declare war, destroy a few things while the other side is offline, and declare peace again, getting away scot free. It would mark a serious commitment to combat.

I guess one major potential for abuse with this is little villages formed by a couple, or even one griefer, who stacks it with alts. There might be other options, but I suggest

: Only villages (or will these become towns in the future?) of 10 players or more can declare war. Also, a town would need to be in existence for a minimum length of time IRL, maybe a week or two? before it can declare war or be declared war on. None of this would stop established towns from stomping on small villages, providing they have had a period of grace. But it would hopefully make it somewhat harder to alt-stack.

Alliances and vassalage could also be worked into the system, which would encourage little weak villages to seek the protection of established towns. A combative town/village would think twice about declaring war on a small village nearby if it knew that it would also automatically be at war with a much larger town down the road.

I think we can expect something along these lines in the future. I certainly hope so!

[theTrav]

I don't know Yolan, from Jorb's post I wouldn't expect to see that sort of game mechanic to support heavy PvP stuff.

They aren't trying to design a game where the objective is to kill each other. That's just something they want to have available

[Yolan]

They aren't trying to design a game where the objective is to kill each other. That's just something they want to have available

Which is what his would be. The possibility, the availability, of war on a larger scale, without all the mess of clues, revenge attacks, and so forth, that is more suitable for a more crime+punishment scale.

I do know that the devs envision village code to be expanded to the point where we have towns, cities, kingdoms, even empires. I would be very surprised if something along the lines of what I have described above wasn't implemented.

The point isn't to make the world into a battlefield, but to enable that to occur if thats how players make it happen. Actually, I suspect the world would tend more towards peace with the above setup. With a few big settlements established, smaller settlements would almost certainly seek their protection, making warfare something that takes place between properly established foes. For that, there would need to be a reason. Griefers aren't established foes in that sense. Someone may well seek to establish an 'evil empire' of some kind down the road. Who knows. But they would need to have a lot of collaborators who can fight/farm/make things. Not a bunch of alt-griefers.

[Jackard]

One suggestion to fix this that I really like is that when you log off a bag of your possessions is left at your hearth fire. Then, you can be stolen from, but as soon as you log back on you'll have the stuff that is in your inventory and if you were stolen from (even if you don't have a claim) you have a thief scent to track.

glad someone liked this enough to remember

[theTrav]

Actually, I think easy identification would probably be a pretty important feature before you can have reasonable wars...
Also I think the main issue to prevent crazy revenges is larger player base and more populous settlements.

[Jackard]

Actually, I think easy identification would probably be a pretty important feature before you can have reasonable wars...

dyed clothing?

sashimono?

coat of arms on shields or cloaks?

[niltrias]

Actually, instead of a percentage chance of being summoned, what if it requires a set amount of clue points to summon? Then, if clue deterioration is also added, thieves could go on a spree, then lie low for a while, then go on a spree again, and have a certain amount of confidence that they will not be summonable.

[Potjeh]

TOWN 1, a town of high leveled, well equipped players, raids TOWN 2, TOWN 2 are no match, they are lower skilled and badly equipped and take a number of losses.

TOWN 1 logs off for the night, happy with their victory.

TOWN 2 now track them, break through their walls with a high STR character and kill all of TOWN 1 while they are offline.

TOWN 2, in fair combat could never have beaten TOWN 1, but thanks to offline summoning it is not an issue, as player skill is completely negated.

You forgot the part where TOWN 1 maxes tradition before the attack and TOWN 2 doesn't because they don't know the attack is coming.

[jorb]

More advanced types of societies, formal diplomacy and war are definitely things we would like to do.

[Rugs]

TOWN 1, a town of high leveled, well equipped players, raids TOWN 2, TOWN 2 are no match, they are lower skilled and badly equipped and take a number of losses.

TOWN 1 logs off for the night, happy with their victory.

TOWN 2 now track them, break through their walls with a high STR character and kill all of TOWN 1 while they are offline.

TOWN 2, in fair combat could never have beaten TOWN 1, but thanks to offline summoning it is not an issue, as player skill is completely negated.

You forgot the part where TOWN 1 maxes tradition before the attack and TOWN 2 doesn't because they don't know the attack is coming.

Nothing wrong with that.